48,460
edits
Difference between revisions of "Breast cancer grading"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Breast cancer grading (view source)
Revision as of 02:44, 30 November 2016
, 02:44, 30 November 2016→See also
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The most common is the ''Nottingham system'', also known as ''Scarff-Bloom-Richardson''. | The most common is the ''Nottingham system'', also known as ''Scarff-Bloom-Richardson''. | ||
''Nottingham grade'' and ''Nottingham score'' redirect here. | |||
==Nottingham system== | ==Nottingham system== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
#*Minimal <10% = 3. | #*Minimal <10% = 3. | ||
# Mitotic rate. | # Mitotic rate. | ||
#*0-5 mitosis/10 [[HPF]] (1.52 mm | #*0-5 mitosis/10 [[HPF]] (1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> --or-- 0.0152 mm<sup>2</sup> * 10) = 1. | ||
#*6-10 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm | #*6-10 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm<sup>2</sup>) = 2. | ||
#*>11 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm | #*>11 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm<sup>2</sup>) = 3. | ||
Mnemonic: ''TMN'' = tubule formation, mitotic rate, nuclear grade. | Mnemonic: ''TMN'' = tubule formation, mitotic rate, nuclear grade. | ||
Notes: | Notes: | ||
*Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name= | *Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=pmid1757079>{{cite journal |author=Elston CW, Ellis IO |title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up |journal=Histopathology |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=403–10 |year=1991 |month=November |pmid=1757079 |doi= |url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=pmid12405945>{{cite journal |author=Elston CW, Ellis IO |title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 |journal=Histopathology |volume=41 |issue=3A |pages=151–2, discussion 152–3 |year=2002 |month=September |pmid=12405945 |doi= |url=}}</ref> | ||
===Note about mitosis counting=== | ===Note about mitosis counting=== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV. | ***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV. | ||
'''STATISTICAL NOTE''': | |||
Sampling 10 high power fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm<sup>2</sup>. It surprising that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area. | |||
==Calculating Nottingham score== | ==Calculating Nottingham score== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 47: | ||
*[[Invasive breast cancer]]. | *[[Invasive breast cancer]]. | ||
*[[Breast cancer staging]]. | *[[Breast cancer staging]]. | ||
*[[HPFitis]]. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||